Public Bill Committee

[Mr. Peter Atkinson in the Chair]

Written evidence reported to the Housefor publication

OMB 1 Rt Hon David Davis MP, Mr Crispin Blunt MP, James Brokenshire MP, and Mr Edward Garnier QC MP.

Gerry Sutcliffe: On a point of order, Mr. Atkinson. Good morning to you and to the Committee.
It might help the Committee if I expand upon whatI said in our previous sitting on amendment No. 30. Members of the Committee will remember that it would have added contracted-out prisons to the list of establishments to which the Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act 2006 applies. The hon. Member for Cheadle, who moved the amendment, was concerned that people undertaking activities relating to children in contracted-out establishments should be subject to the relevant requirements of that Act. Having been made aware of that concern, I asked my officials to look into the matter.
I hope that the Committee will be reassured by paragraph (3)(1) of schedule 4 to the 2006 Act, which lists the types of establishments to which the Act’s safeguards apply. Included on the list in sub-paragraph (d) is
“an institution which is exclusively or mainly for the detention of children”.
That will mean that employees of all prisons, young offenders institutions and secure training centres, whether publicly or privately run, will be covered. I hope that the Committee finds that clarification helpful, particularly given the scope of clauses 11 to 15, all of which can at least in theory apply to institutions in which children are held.

Mark Hunter: Further to that point of order, Mr. Atkinson, I am grateful for the opportunity to respond to the Minister. I am also grateful to him for clarifying what he accepted were our genuine concerns. On the basis of what he has said, I am content to let the matter rest.

Clauses 15 and 16 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 17

Conveyance of prohibited articles into or out of prison

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Edward Garnier: I want, if I may, to highlight my concerns about the importation and use of controlled drugs in the prison estate. Drugs must feature heavily in any discussion of prison policy, not only because they are responsible for bringing the majority of offenders into prison but because they present apparently intractable problems inside. They also prevent successful resettlement and rehabilitation after release.
As we understand it, the main cause of crime is drugs, followed closely by alcohol. The number of people beginning a prison sentence for drugs offences has more than doubled in the past 10 years from 3,483 to 7,153 each year. At the end of December 2005,17 per cent. of male sentenced prisoners and 35 per cent. of female sentenced prisoners had been convicted of drugs offences, by far the largest proportion convicted of any offence. Furthermore, the problem is getting worse. In 1995, drug offences accounted for only 10 per cent. of male sentenced prisoners and27 per cent. of the sentenced female prison population.
The figures are still misleadingly small: a much larger group of prisoners have committed an offence that is in some way drugs-related. Some 55 per cent. of prisoners report having committed offences connected to their drug taking, with the need for money to buy drugs being the most commonly cited factor. A study for the Home Office found that 73 per cent. of respondents had taken an illegal drug in the year before entering prison.
Of course, drug use does not stop on entry into prison. Little or nothing is done on the inside to cure addictions. There are things called drug-free wings on prison, a concept that I find extraordinary. The situation is regrettable and, in a speech provided as evidence to the all-party group for abuse investigations, the Lord Chief Justice, Lord Phillips, said:
“Drug treatment is an essential step to rehabilitation in the case of many offenders.”
Of course, efforts are being and have been made to improve the situation. Prisoners are subject to random mandatory drug tests and, in 2003-04, many morethan 53,000 people entered drug detoxification programmes—nearly double the target of 27,000 entrants by April 2004. Nevertheless, use among prisoners remains high and the situation unsatisfactory. A recent Home Office study found that 40 per cent. of prisoners had used drugs at least once while in their current prison, 25 per cent. in the past month and16 per cent. in the past week. The problem is particularly acute among women prisoners, of whom it is estimated that two thirds have a drug problem. Total eradication might be unrealistic, but we ought to be doing much better than we are.
If clause 17 and other parts relating to controlled drugs improve the situation, I will be happy to applaud them. However, I am concerned that the proposalis just another headline to be deployed by the Government to show that they are doing something about the use of illegal drugs in prison and that nothing more will happen. I would like to use this stand part debate to urge the Government to get a grip. I appreciate that they are doing something, but they need to do a lot more about the scourge of drug use in our prisons.
We face a terrible problem. As I pointed out a moment ago, drugs are the root cause of much of the crime that leads to people going to prison, but there are pressures on those outside to import drugs to those inside. Numerically, the numbers are small, but some prison officers, particularly those in big city prisons, are under tremendous pressure from drug gangs or barons to import drugs into prison. People will approach them, either in prison or outside, and tell them that their home address is known, as well as that of their children’s school and their wife’s, husband’s or partner’s work place, and that it would be a sensible idea if they delivered drugs to a customer inside prison.
We also know that prison officers—certainly the rank and file—are not terribly well paid and, therefore, must be very tempted by offers of large sums of money to import drugs into prison. We can tackle that in a number of ways. For instance, we could enhance the professionalism of prisoner officers’ careers, and give them better training and more self-esteem in order to prevent that very small number of officers from being tempted or pressured into bringing drugs into prison and to take a better course of action.
Clearly, most of clause 17 is common sense and brings up to date the criminal law relating to the conveyance of prohibited articles into or out of prison. I shall stop there and trust that the Government will do rather more than just pass a law and that they will provide greater support to the Prison Service, the police and prison officers so that the scourge of drug taking and dealing, and the resultant high reoffending rate, can be dealt with coherently and effectively.

Gerry Sutcliffe: I thank the hon. and learned Gentleman for raising an important issue about the use of drugs in prison. He is quite right to point out that clause 17 will modernise parts of the Prison Act 1952 dealing with prison security. Clauses 16 to 19 deal with illicit articles. He moved on to a wider point about drug taking and I agree with him—it is a major problem that cannot be treated cosmetically. We must get to the heart of the problem. That is why I am pleased that mandatory drug testing, which is considered the most accurate assessment of drug use, is showing the lowest levels of drug use since 1997. However, our ability to detect drugs pushes up the figures on drug use.
We must deal with the problems that people have regarding drug use but, as the hon. and learned Gentleman said, we must also determine what we can do to stop the smuggling of drugs and mobile phones into prisons. The clauses deal with stopping that smuggling.
The hon. and learned Gentleman raises many issues. He has also asked a number of parliamentary questions on drugs, which I have answered. I am sure that we will return to that in future. Clause 17 replaces the existing section 40 of the Prison Act 1952, with new sections 40A, 40B and 40C. The purpose of the clause is to update, clarify and refine the existing provisions, and to create new offences that address the development of new technology such as mobile phones. 
When the 1952 Act was taken through Parliament, the primary focus of illicit smuggling into and out of prisons was alcohol and tobacco. As the hon. and learned Gentleman says, these days drugs present a major problem and their illicit use within prisons is assisted by the use of mobile phones. Although the Prison Service is taking forward a series of measures to tackle those important issues, it is essential that the relevant legislation is also brought up to date to recognise and reflect the prohibited items that are of key interest now.
The clause offers greater clarity, breaking down the prohibited items into three bands that are grouped according to their seriousness; the maximum penalty for each band is also graduated according to seriousness. The most serious items of drugs, explosives, firearms or other offensive weapons are set out in list A in new section 40A(2). New section 40B makes it an offence to convey articles in list A into or out of prison without authorisation. The maximum penalty for committing such an offence will be10 years’ imprisonment, a fine, or both. That sends a clear message that we will not tolerate illegal operations in prisons that threaten or undermine the security of the prison, prisoners, staff and ultimately the public. The availability of a severe maximum penalty will help to deter visitors from making casual attempts to smuggle drugs into prisons.

James Brokenshire: Will the Minister comment on the inclusion of mobile phones in list B, rather than list A, given the increasing problem of mobile phones being smuggled into prison? They are often concealed, for example, within laptops that are used in the preparation of legal cases. Such smuggling may pose a risk in terms of public threats, including terrorism and other issues; if criminals are able to contact the outside world using mobile phones while they are in prison, that would seem to be quite an important issue to address.

Gerry Sutcliffe: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising that point, and I hope I will address it to his satisfaction shortly.
I was discussing the need for the maximum penalty to be increased, as it had not been raised since 1952. It is an anomaly that smuggling alcohol and tobacco should be subject to a more severe penalty than the penalty for smuggling drugs or firearms, unless the drugs or firearms are directly associated with assisting an escape.
As the hon. Gentleman said, the clause also addresses the problems caused to the security of our prisons by new technology. It does so by creating new offences of taking mobile phones, sound recording devices or cameras into and out of prison. Those prohibited items are set out in list B of new section 40A(3). New section 40C makes it an offence to convey those items into or out of prison without authorisation. As he said, mobile phones present a particular threat to the security of our prisons, and they can enable prisoners to continue their illegal activities and aid the supply of drugs.
Cameras and sound recording devices can also threaten the security of prisons. Pictures taken inside prisons can compromise security, and potentially aid escape. At the same time, new section 40C(4) provides a public interest defence for an offence committed under new section 40C; it maintains the right to bring to the attention of a court a serious failure of a prison, such as the abuse of prisoners. Finally, a list C item is any item described as such by prison rules, and is subject to a maximum penalty of a £1,000 fine.
We consider the revision of section 40 of the 1952 Act to be sensible and reasonable. It addresses the issues raised by new technology and will provide the Prison Service with strong legislative support in its efforts to prevent illegal activities inside prisons.
The hon. Member for Hornchurch is right to raise the issue of mobile phones; it will always be kept under consideration, because of the related security issues. We believe that it is right that mobile phones are on list B at this time, to reflect the serious nature of the problem. We do not think mobile phones are as big an issue as drugs are at the moment for the reason that the hon. and learned Member for Harborough pointed out, but we will keep them under consideration.

James Brokenshire: I am grateful that the Minister will keep the issue under review, because mobile telephone technology is moving on, and the size of the equipment needed and the ability to break it down are becoming more of an issue for the Prison Service. I seek the Minister’s assurance that there will be regular monitoring, given the ability to conceal parts within laptops and other pieces of equipment that now go through and are much more difficult to screen. The problem is particularly serious in view of of the terrorist threat that this country continues to face.

Gerry Sutcliffe: Prison security is always kept under review, particularly in respect of the more serious, category A prisoners. The distinction I wish to make is that list A articles are illegal outside prison as well as inside, whereas mobile telephones are on list B to reflect the seriousness of the problem that they cause inside prison. That does not negate what the hon. Member for Hornchurch says: certainly we have to keep reviewing security. As the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling, who is sitting to my right, said, our aim is always to have a balance between the issues we face, and mobile telephones are not equivalent to, say, explosives. I thank my hon. Friend for that point. With that clarification, I hope that the Committee will accept the clause.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 17 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 18 and 19 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 20

Removal of requirement to appoint a medical officer etc

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Edward Garnier: Again, I want to highlight an issuethat the Government need to demonstrate increasing awareness of, namely, health provision for the mentally  ill inside prison. I started the debate last week, but the matter is perhaps more appropriately dealt with under clause 20.
Under clause 20(1), the Prison Act 1952 is amended where section 7(1) makes appointing a medical officer for each prison a requirement. That provision will now be omitted. I can understand the policy, because now health services are provided within prison by the national health service through the local primary care trust. Patients in prison are on the list of a local GP practice, or covered by some other arrangement made by the PCT, so a dedicated prison doctor is no longer necessary. However, if we are not to have a dedicated prison doctor, we must surely have proper facilities for the treatment of the mentally ill.
The problem cannot be just brushed under the carpet. Lord Phillips, the Lord Chief Justice, speaking to the all-party parliamentary group on substance abuse in March 2006 in this building, said:
“Many actual or potential criminals are dangerous because they suffer from personality disorders or other mental conditions which can be diagnosed as illnesses. Prison is not the best place to detain those who are mentally disordered.”
Sadly, however, all sorts of people with mental disorders are sent to prison, partly because the national health service no longer has provision for residential care of the mentally ill, which, in fairness, partly flows from the failure of the care in the community systemto cope with many of the people who have mental illnesses. A number of people who live rough or commit crimes of violence are mentally ill. They may be mentally ill because they have a mental problem that has occurred naturally, or the balance of their mind has been affected by drugs. It does not matter why they are ill, however; what is important is that once diagnosed, they receive the appropriate treatment. It is regrettable that prisons are used—I say this not only as a politician but as a Crown court recorder—as adjuncts to the national health service.
Mental health problems are worryingly prevalent among those entering prison: 72 per cent. of males and 74 per cent. of females in prison suffer from two or more mental disorders, compared to only 5 per cent and 2 per cent. respectively of the general population. What is more, 20 per cent. of men and almost 40 per cent. of women entering custody say that they have attempted suicide. In the past decade, one prisoner has committed suicide every four days.
There is no point in saying that mentally ill offenders would be better managed outside prison and would be better off if they never entered prison in the first place. That is uncontroversial and has been stated by Anne Owers, the chief inspector of prisons. Her estimate, based on visits to prisons, is that 41 per cent. of prisoners held in health care centres should be in secure national health service accommodation. The Lord Chief Justice agrees. In relation to prisoners suffering from mental disorders, he says that
“many of these would be better detained in mental hospitals.”
Treatment of the mentally ill in prisons is far from ideal. I appreciate that the ordinary prison officers who do the health work in prisons do their best, but they are not trained to deal with mentally ill people. As a result of overcrowding in prisons and the insufficient number of prison officers looking after prisoners, particularly at weekends, the mentally ill are left in their cells instead of being given appropriate treatment.
There are mental health in-reach teams in 102 prisons, but at any one time there are likely to be at least 40 prisoners who, having already been assessed, must wait three months or longer before being transferred to hospital. Many more have a long wait before an assessment takes place.
Far from helping to cure mental health problems, the environment and the regime of prison seem likely to exacerbate them. Research has shown that 28 per cent. of male sentenced prisoners with evidence of psychosis reported spending 23 hours or longer in their cells each day—more than twice the proportion of those without mental health problems who spend that length of time in their cells. Suicide attempts and incidents of self-harm are frighteningly high. Nearly a third of women in prison injure themselves an average of five times, and 6 per cent. of men do so twice.
Jonathan Aitken, who involuntarily became something of an expert on prisons, has written this about his time in prison:
“On the wing, there was plenty of evidence of behaviour brought on by mental distress...one young man only ever wore the same pair of jeans and a green nylon cagoule. He never wore shoes or socks, never went out on exercise, hardly ever spoke to anyone and was understood to have been taken advantage of sexually by predatory prisoners...Another had a habit of inserting objects into his body: a pencil in an arm, matchsticks in his ankle.”
The conclusion that he drew, and that I draw, is that prison does little to address the many and severe mental health problems of its inmates. That has consequences for the resettlement needs of released prisoners with mental health problems, because those needs are not being identified or met. Some 96 per cent. of mentally disordered prisoners, including 80 per cent. of those who have committed the most serious offences, are put back into the community without supported housing. More than three quarters are given no appointment with outside mental health experts or carers. According to the Government’s social exclusion unit, more than 50 prisoners every year commit suicide shortly after release.
Hidden behind the apparently uncontroversial clause is an enormous problem that is getting worse and needs to be tackled. If the Government are not to have a dedicated medical health officer in every prison because of the new arrangements with PCTs, it is incumbent upon them to ensure that there is, not merely some mental illness care, but more than adequate mental illness care for people going into prison, those in prison and those coming out of prison. I do not attach personal blame to the Minister, but the Government can no longer say, “Well, this is something we have inherited.” They have been in office for 10 years. I look forward to some words of reassurance from the Minister.
Clause 20(3) makes ineffective section 17 of the Prison Act 1952, which bans painful tests carried out by medical officers on prisoners in order to detect malingering or for other purposes. Why is a painful test for any purpose necessary? Will the Minister explain precisely what is the purpose of removing section 17, and therefore the ban on such tests, and say what will happen instead? I cannot believe that any humane medical officer would deliberately hurt anyone, although some investigations clearly require discomfort to be inflicted on a patient. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s explanation of clause 20(3) and ofthe removal of obligations under section 28(5) of the 1952 Act.

Gerry Sutcliffe: I shall deal first with the reality of the clause and how it affects the Bill and then return tothe hon. and learned Gentleman’s concerns about mental health provision and to the wider debate about mental health issues.
The clause removes the requirement for prisonsto appoint a medical officer. The role of the medical officer in prisons is long outdated; its creation in legislation reflected the custom and practice in prisons long before the creation of the national health service and before the Prisons Act 1952 in which it appeared was passed. It represents the old way of providing health services to prisoners.
With the recent transfer of responsibility for prison health services in public sector prisons to the national health service, the great majority of prison health services are now delivered under the general provisions of the National Health Service Act 1977. Local primary care trusts now commission those services and the continued existence of the prison medical officer is at odds with the modern national health service.
When it was first implemented, the medical officer role represented a mix of managerial, practical and clinical duties, some of which we would now view as inappropriate for a clinician. Over the years, the role has in practice evolved considerably to keep pace with the modernisation of the service. It has moved from the tradition of the person with that role being an officer of the prison towards a more appropriate role, equivalent to that of a community GP.
The removal of the medical officer role servesto support the significant improvement and modernisation of prison health services that has taken place in recent years. It also reflects the enormous cultural change that needed to take place in prisons to effect those changes. The clause removes outdated, unhelpful terminology that acted as a barrier to the delivery of practical and cultural change in prison health services. The change ensures that the future of the prison health service is within the NHS, with health services provided via the 1977 Act, in line with services for the rest of the population. That is the reasoning behind the clause, which hon. Members will understand in relation to the purposes of the Bill.
Rightly, and understandably, the hon. and learned Gentleman raised the issue of mental health problems in prisons. I agree with him that there are people in prison with mental health problems who do not need to be there and we should make every effort to ensure that their needs are addressed.

Robert Flello: Will the Minister give me reassurance and comfort that the flexibilities in the Bill will allow some of the superb work with people who have mental health problems that is carried out by the not-for-profit sector in an almost non-statutory, much more easily approachable manner, to be developed and applied in the Prison Service?

Gerry Sutcliffe: Very much so. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for pointing out the role of the not-for-profit sector and I would hope to see that work not only continue but develop in the way that he outlined. The hon. and learned Member for Harborough said that prison officers were not trained in mental health awareness. He is wrong. We have invested close to £500,000 in training 9,000 prison officers in mental health awareness, so there are prison officers with the skills. Clause 20 does not affect the current ability of prison officers to develop health and safety training and to look at how they deal with a situation. It does not affect the chain of command if there is an attempted suicide and the medical officer needs to be called. The procedures are all in place.
The hon. and learned Gentleman concentrated on the role of the Prison Service in relation to mental health problems. He will know, because he deals with some of the issues in his other role, that the disposal of people with mental health problems who have committed an offence is a matter for the courts. So the courts have a major role to play when they receive the reports on individual cases.

Edward Garnier: Of course the Minister is right, but the problem is that there is a difference between being in such a mental state that one needs to be sectioned and placed in a secure hospital and being mentally ill but still short of needing to be sectioned. Many courts frequently have to send to prison people who are not, if I may loosely use the expression, “McNaghten mad”, but who are none the less not well. While it would be better and preferable to send those people whom I loosely described as not being well into the national health system, there is not room or there are not the beds available.
For goodness’ sake, there are not even spaces for mentally ill people who do not commit crimes; we know that as constituency Members of Parliament. When we send people to prison, we have to do so irrespective of our private wish that they could go somewhere else. As a judge, one has to do what the law requires one to do. Once they get to prison, the judge has no say over how the individual is cared for, and if there is an absence of proper care there is nothing that the judge can do about it.

Gerry Sutcliffe: I am grateful to the hon. and learned Gentleman, who brings to the Committee experience of the role of a judge. I am not making the case that it is all down to the courts, but there is a role for the courts to play in terms of some of the diversion schemes that have been put in place for mental health assessments to be undertaken so that the courts can be provided with information about an offender’s mental condition and any treatment that may be appropriate. I take the point that it does not meet all circumstances and some of the needs may not be apparent at that court process.
I am not labouring the point and saying that it is all down to the courts and it is no one else’s responsibility, because clearly it is a responsibility and we have as a Government tried to make significant improvements to the mental health services available within prisons through the development of the new NHS mental health in-reach services, which are backed up by an investment of more than £20 million a year. As the hon. and learned Gentleman says, there are in-reach teams in 102 prisons, including 60 staff now in post. They ensure that mentally ill prisoners are assessed as too ill to remain in prison so that they can be transferred to a hospital setting appropriate to their care and security under the requirements of the Mental Health Act.
In 2005, 24 per cent. more prisoners with mental illness too severe for them to be in prison were transferred to hospital than in 2002. The figures were up to 896 from 722. There has also been a decrease in the number of people waiting more than 12 weeks for a transfer to hospital. In the quarter ending June 2006, 44 prisoners were waiting, down from 62 in the same quarter in 2005, so we are showing a significant improvement. We are also running pilots that explore the possibility of reducing the 12-week waiting standard to just 14 days.
The hon. and learned Gentleman asked about prevention of suicide and self-harm. Suicide rates in prison remain higher than in the general population, although they have declined. Some 78 apparently self-inflicted deaths occurred in 2005, 95 in 2004 and94 in 2003. That must be put in the context of the number of individuals passing through the prison system each year—more than 130,000. Every death in prison is a terrible tragedy affecting families, staff and other prisoners deeply. Ministers, the National Offender Management Service and the Prison Service are committed to reducing the number of such tragic incidents. I am a member of a group of stakeholders looking at ways in which we can do that.
Self-inflicted deaths in custody are subject to highly random and large cyclical swings. The most reliable measure is the three-year rolling average. From 2003-04 to 2005-6, that stood at 121 deaths per 100,000 prisoners, which reflects the stabilisation of the figures over recent years. The Safer Custody Group, whichI reported on earlier, works with the prison andhealth services, and a variety of agencies, looking at assessment, care in custody and teamwork—ACCT—to help at-risk prisoners. ACCT will be extended to all prisons in 2007.
The hon. and learned Gentleman asked also about what we were doing for people with mental health problems when they leave prison. Continued treatment in the community is vital for such people and in February 2006 the Home Office launched a five-year strategy for protecting the public and reducing reoffending. That contains a commitment to look at ways in which offenders receive effective mental health treatment, whether in prison, hospital or the community. Offenders identified as having severe or enduring mental health problems are subject to the care programme approach during their stay in prison and on release.
The hon. and learned Gentleman is quite right. This is not a party political issue. He will accept that there have been mistakes with care in the community and that the past 10 years have seen improvements. However, we need to go further. During the short time that I have been in my post, I have been concerned about mental health problems in prison, particularly among young offenders. A great deal more needs to be, and can be done. I am working with health Ministers to improve the situation and the Committee will be aware of the improvements in the Mental Health Bill, which is going through the Lords.
Mental health is an important issue, not only for the Committee, but for those tackling reoffending and looking at a range of health needs. The hon. and learned Gentleman talked about the number of women in prison with mental health problems. I saw that first hand on a visit to Holloway. It was distressing to see some people who could have been dealt with in another way and I look forward to Baroness Corston’s report on vulnerable women, which will come out soon. He referred to subsection (3), which repeals the “painful tests” provisions in the Prison Act. If he requires more details on that, I shall be happy to write to him and to the Committee. However, with that explanation ofthe Government’s policy on mental health and the particular issues relating to clause 20, I hope that the Committee will support it.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 20 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 21 to 23 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 24

Detention and training orders: early release

Edward Garnier: I beg to move amendment No. 22, in clause 24, page 17, line 39, leave out subsection (2).
I shall be relatively brief in dealing with this amendment, which stands in my name and those of my hon. Friends. Subsection (2) reads:
“The amendments made by subsection (1) apply in relation to an offender detained under a detention and training order which comes into force before this section comes into force as they apply in relation to an offender detained under a detention and training order which comes into force after this section.”
I want to point out some of the complications and difficulties that arise under the current sentencing regime. I have here a Crown Court Bench Book, which is given by the Judicial Studies Board to full-time judges and also to recorders. I possess it. Whether or not it belongs to the Lord Chancellor, I do not know.

Peter Atkinson: You nicked it.

Edward Garnier: I do not think I can be accused of having nicked it, as Mr. Atkinson so kindly suggests.

Vernon Coaker: Allegedly.

Edward Garnier: Allegedly. It is a very valuable compendium of sentencing powers and the forms of words that judges are recommended to speak when sentencing an individual. I do not want to go through all of that. I simply want to point out to the Minister that the whole sentencing regime, as created by this Government over the past 10 years, is incredibly complicated. It does not make clear to the defendant the sentence they will get and it does not make it clear to the public, and more particularly the victim of the offence, what the defendant is about to receive.
Let us look at several headings which relate to sentences for defendants aged under 18 on conviction. For custodial sentences, we have detention and training orders. We have detention under section 91 of the Powers of the Criminal Court Sentencing Act 2000 for less than 12 months or for 12 months or more. We have a required minimum sentence of detention under the Firearms Act 1968. We have an extended sentence of detention under the Criminal Justice Act 2003. We have detention for public protection under the Criminal Justice Act 2003 and we have detention for life under the Criminal Justice Act 2003.
 Under non-custodial sentences, we have youth community orders of a general nature. There are curfew orders, exclusion orders, attendance centre orders, supervision orders, action plan orders, community rehabilitation orders, community punishment orders, community punishment and rehabilitation orders and drug treatment and testing orders. That is as of January 2006. No doubt it has changed several times since then. Do not worry—I am sure that I will be on a Judicial Studies Board course to correct any mistakes that I have made before very long.
The detention orders early release aspect of this is complicated. It is complicated even more by the context in which one has to understand it. The purpose of my amendment is to get the Minister publicly to explain precisely what is intended by clause 24 and how it fits into common sense and honesty in sentencing.

Gerry Sutcliffe: The hon. and Learned Gentleman makes a wider point again about sentencing policy and the advice that is given. He will be aware that the Home Secretary announced in July that we were looking at all of this and that there is a consultation process taking place at the moment about sentencing. We do want to see greater clarity in the sentencing provisions, but we also want the public to understand clearly what sentencing is about.
Clause 24 makes a minor technical adjustment to the arrangements for early release from a detention and training order. At present, a trainee who is granted early release must be released on a particular date. If for some reason that date is missed, the trainee must stay in custody for a further month. This can happen for a number of reasons. Problems with finding accommodation suitable for electronic tagging is a notable example. Clause 24 introduces greater flexibility by allowing the release to take place on any day after the early release point has passed.
The amendment will prevent trainees sentenced before the new arrangements come into force from being released in accordance with them. The Government see no reason for delaying the effective introduction of the more flexible arrangements in this way. We are not proposing any change in general practice. Trainees serving between eight and 18 months who qualify for early release will continue to be released one month before the mid-point of the order. Qualifying trainees serving 18 months or more will be released one or two months before the mid-point. If for some reason the early release date is missed—for example because of a delay in finding accommodation suitable for electronic tagging—it will be possible to release a trainee later without having to keep him or her in custody for a full extra month. There is no point in keeping trainees who are qualified for and being granted early release in custody for an extra month unless there is a substantive reason for doing so.
The clause is highly appropriate and will give us flexibility. The amendment would not, and in our view it would make matters worse. I understand why the hon. and learned Gentleman raised the matter—he wanted to discuss the wider issue of sentencing guidelines. He is assiduous and I am impressed by his ability to deal with his roles as a judge and a Member of Parliament. He is clearly an exceptional person.

Edward Garnier: I remember once advising the Prime Minister of a foreign country on a matter of defamation law. After I had advised him not to take action against a particular publication, he thanked me and gave me a set of first-day covers from his country. I was about to pocket them, hoping that a cheque for my fee would follow shortly thereafter, when my instructing solicitor took them away from me and said that he would have them on the basis that philately would get the Prime Minister everywhere.
I am afraid that the Minister is good at flattery—I expect first-day covers to head my way shortly—but the clause seems to be a means for the Government to get around the custody overcrowding problem. That is at the heart of the problems faced by the Prison Service and the custody system. Until the Government sort out the overcrowding problem and stop pretending that early releases are for criminal justice reasons rather than to make space for the queue of people coming into our prisons and young offender institutions, confidence in their ability to manage this aspect of public policy will be diminished.
Today is not the day for a prolonged debate on the matter. The Opposition will constantly return to it, but for present purposes, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 24 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 25

Accommodation in which period of detention and training to be served

Mark Williams: I beg to move amendment No. 40, in clause 25, page 18, line 25, leave out subsection (5).
The amendment stands in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle. I think that the appropriate expression may be that I have been left holding the baby, but I shall proceed. Clause 25(5) allows the Secretary of State to direct that some young people be removed from young offender institutions into adult prisons once they have reached the age of 18. We seek to remove that subsection from the Bill.
Before 2000, the law required that 18 to 20-year-olds be held in young offender institutions. Approximately 9,000 young adults aged between 18 and 20 are now in prison in England and Wales. The Government attempted to reduce the minimum age of imprisonment to 18 in section 61 of the Criminal Justice and Court Services Act 2000. Perhaps in the light of pressure from interested parties that were rightly concerned about the standard of provision for young people in adult prisons, that section was not brought into effect. The Home Office has called in interested groups to consider the specific needs of the 18 to 20-year-old age group, including standards for the management of offenders in custody and in the community. I should be interested to know the Minister’s feelings about that consultation and the views of those who were consulted.
The Government are attempting to enact an idea to which many groups, such as Rainer, the Prison Reform Trust and the Howard League for Penal Reform, are opposed. I cite the views expressed by Her Majesty’s chief inspector of prisons in her 2004-05 annual report, which stated:
“Our reports continue to document the inadequate provision for young adults”.
Is prison the best place for 18 to 20-year-olds? This age group suffers severe difficulties and therefore requires special attention. The Prison Reform Trust found that 78.4 per cent. of young men released from prison in 2002 were reconvicted within two years of release.
We have heard about the general problems of mental health from which young people suffer proportionately more highly than others. To deal with the problems of education and training as well as mental health problems, special provision is needed to accommodate such needs. Reducing reoffending in this age group requires us to prepare young offenders for the world and to teach them skills that we often take for granted, such as how to organise personal finances and how and where to look for employment. We have often discussed such needs in the Committee. Without being taught those skills and receiving other treatment for drug abuse and mental health problems, young adults will remain as likely as ever to reoffend. Crucially—the Minister showed his personal commitment to this in his evidence to the Welsh Affairs Committee—that cannot be done in prisons.
The 2004-05 report of Her Majesty’s chief inspector of prisons stated:
“The poorest provision at present is to be found in establishments that hold young adults within an adult population.”
Different age groups have different needs, but there is inadequate funding in prisons to take account of such needs. The Prison Reform Trust report “A Lost Generation: the experiences of young people in prison” revealed that far too many 18 to 20-year-olds were being moved around an overcrowded system and experiencing impoverished regimes involving long hours locked up without the support and supervision that they require, causing disruption and distress.
Will the provision as drafted make the situation worse? Will it not be a case of having no room for young adults in secure training centres because resources are a big issue, which means that they will be put into prisons instead? The Minister knows that there is a problem in Wales, as his evidence to the Welsh Affairs Committee showed. The hon. and learned Member for Harborough referred to the matter in his contribution on mental health issues. Can the Minister assure us that the measure will not be used as an excuse to free up space in the already overcrowded youth custody system?

Edward Garnier: The hon. Gentleman may be reassured that the measure is not being put in place to relieve overcrowding in the young offender detention system by placing such offenders in the adult prison system, because the adult prison system is itself overcrowded. One does not cure one bit of overcrowding by further overcrowding an already overcrowded adult prison estate.
There is a young offender institution and an adult prison in my constituency, and I have visited several young offender institutions and adult prisons in the past 18 months or so. Young offender institutions take people up to the age of 21, and there are often people of 19 or 20 in those institutions who look about 13 or 14, yet some people aged 16 or 17 in custody look 25. Some foreign nationals in young offender institutions do not have accurate records of when they were born, so they may be over 21. However, I am told by people who work in young offender institutions that such detainees often say that they are under 21 in order to be imprisoned in the young offender institution rather than the adult prison. There is a huge problem of actual age as compared to maturity, and the slightly lesser problem of older foreign prisoners being housed in the young offender estate.
I am concerned about what considerations the Secretary of State takes into account in deciding whether a person who is 18 but not yet 21 is to be considered for detention in a prison as opposed to a YOI. Clearly the Secretary of State will not personally make that decision. I do not imagine that even the Minister with responsibility for prisons will make that decision; it will be delegated to people within the Prison Service or in the private prison estate. We need to be extremely careful that prisoners who are vulnerable young people in some respects—yes, they have committed serious crimes, otherwise they would not be in custody; I do not shed a tear about that—are not pushed into the adult estate when they are not suitable and could not cope either physically or mentally with the conditions of an adult prison.
Prison is not a nice place to be. Young offender institutions are not nice places to be. I am afraid that sometimes people have to be sent to them because they have committed serious crimes, but we need to be careful about treating people badly within the prison system by sending unsuitable youngsters into the adult system, for example, because it could lead to more damage than the Minister would want.

Gerry Sutcliffe: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Ceredigion for speaking to the amendment and for the comments from the hon. and learned Member for Harborough. I wholeheartedly agree that we have tobe careful about this issue. I want to reassure the Committee and, I hope, the hon. Member for Ceredigion that we are seeking a contingency for the reasons that he outlined. Clearly there will have to be a great deal of discussion, and I will come to some of the things we are already doing in terms of adult offenders and what needs to happen.
A project was set up as part of the National Offender Management Service offender management programme to look at management and standards for young adult offenders by March 2007. It is talking to the stakeholders that the hon. Gentleman quoted, including Rainer and a variety of bodies. The project has carried out four reviews of matters relating to young adult offenders: age range; legislative arrangements for their management; custodial estate provisions; and community provisions. Each review was informed by an examination of recent publications, analysis of statistical data, workshops and focus groups, and in addition meetings were held with operational staff and offender policy leads, the voluntary community and private sector, leading interest groups, inspectorates and the prison and probation ombudsman. The team also visited a number of prisons, youth offender institutions and probation areas, including the north-west pathfinder for offender management. The project has worked closely with the Youth Justice Board throughout.
The age range review has examined the practice across all Departments, good practice overseas and research evidence in relation to offending patterns and maturity. There is an emerging argument in favour of looking to realign our age definitions in line with other agencies, but the full implications need further exploration before any firm recommendations are put to Ministers. As yet, no firm decision has been made. Decisions on legislative changes, if necessary, will be made once any change options have been decided; for example in respect of YOI age range definitions.
The custodial and community reviews have been based on an assessment of the way forward on the key characteristics of the young adult offenders age group and, consequent on those, the development of a regime to reduce the reoffending. The review of the custodial estate has identified options for the future management of young adult offenders. The priorities of public protection and reducing reoffending while ensuring that vulnerable offenders are protected will determine the preferred option, dependent on the offender need profile and the outcome of the cost-benefit analysis.
I hope that that underlines what the Government are trying to do with young adult offenders and young people provision across Government, focusing on prevention and then dealing with reoffenders. I have been impressed with the work of organisations such as SmartJustice, in the deflections that they are trying to achieve in the development of young offenders. We are attempting not to put 18-year-olds in prison but to enact a contingency that is required under current legislation.
Subsection (5) allows detention and training order trainees who become 18 during the course of their sentences to be placed in an adult prison, which is a necessary provision for a situation that might arise when section 61 of the Criminal Justice and Court Services Act is brought into force. Section 61 abolishes the sentence of detention in a young offenders institution that is currently available for 18 to 20-year-olds. Following that change, if we then decided that young offenders institutions would no longer be provided for 18 to 20-year-olds, that would create a  problem for the under-18 estate, because moving an 18-year-old trainee to a young adults institution would no longer be possible. Clause 25 would instead enable him or her to be placed in an adult prison.
I might be asked why 18-year-old DTO trainees cannot stay in the juvenile estate until the end of their sentences. There is no difficulty in a trainee remaining for a reasonable period, but an offender who is just under 18 at the time of conviction may be over 18 by the time sentence is passed and may then have to serve up to 12 months in custody. He or she could then well be over 19 by the end of the custodial period. An even more extreme case would be if the trainee was then released from custody but subsequently breached the terms of the notice of supervision. He or she could be sent back to custody by the court. By that time, the trainee could be over 20.
Forcing the Youth Justice Board to place 19 or 20-year-olds in the under-18 estate, where they would be mixing with 15-year-olds and so on, is clearly not desirable. There are obvious safeguarding implications. As I have tried to make clear, the policy on young adult offenders in custody is currently under review and no decision on the way forward has yet been taken. We are listening to the groups—experts in the area—that the hon. Member for Ceredigion asked us to.
If and when there is a need to place DTO trainees in prison, policy guidelines will be in place to ensure that the transfer to prison happens only in appropriate cases, with due consideration to the requirements of the Human Rights Act 1998 and to meeting the needs of individual vulnerable people. I should emphasise that, unless detention in a young offenders institution is abolished and the age of adult imprisonment consequently reduced to 18, we have no intention of placing DTO trainees in adult establishments. The subsection is purely a contingency arrangement. With that explanation and commitment, made in Committee and Select Committee, the hon. Member for Ceredigion knows what we are trying to achieve and should be able to withdraw the amendment.

Mark Williams: I thank the Minister for that generous response. Again, he has assured me that there is a precautionary principle at work here, but my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle and I wanted to flag up the needs of this very different group. The Minister has assured me that the Government share, at least in part, that concern. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 25 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 26 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 27

Escort arrangements

Edward Garnier: I beg to move amendment No. 23, in clause 27, page 19, line 34, at end insert—
‘(3A) After paragraph 1 there is inserted—
“(1A) In making the arrangements under paragraph 1 the Secretary of State shall have a duty to ensure that young offenders’ safeguarding and welfare needs are addressed during transport.”.’.
In moving the amendment, my hon. Friends, the two hon. Gentlemen from the Liberal Democrat Benches and I wish to highlight a troubling matter, which I discovered on my prison visits over the last 18 months or so—the transport of young offenders from court to prison or to young offenders institutions or other place of secure accommodation. To cite an example, I went to Hollesley Bay, which is in Suffolk, just beyond Ipswich, and is, to all intents and purposes, a humane and well-run young offenders institution. At the time there was a thoughtful, intelligent governor, although he may have retired by now. Within the estate, there was also a very secure unit for long-term young offenders, which I thought was an excellent establishment. Next door, there is Warren Hill, a category D prison.
As I met the prison officers who deal with the reception area—those who receive the young offenders as they come from the various courts—I was told that they are often receiving young offenders as late as midnight and that often the young offenders will have travelled hundreds of miles in the vans used to transport them to the institution, travelling from 4 pm, or 4.30 pm. I was told about one youngster who had been sentenced at Norwich in the morning. He was held in the cells underneath the court throughout the day and then put in a van and driven, with adult prisoners—he was not in the same compartment as the adult prisoners, but he was in the same van—around East Anglia while the adult prisoners were dropped off. He was the last in line to be dropped off. It was nearly midnight when he was finally received.
That example is not one of a young offender being carried in the back of a police car, or in a coach—it is a young offender in a sweatbox. They are called sweatboxes because they are little biscuit tins into which individuals are placed. There are no windows, obviously; there is some form of ventilation. There is a bench or a chair, but the area in which the prisoner is transported is not much bigger than the top of the table in front of me; that is the floor space in which the individual travels. I would estimate that the top ofthat table in front of the Minister is about 2 ft 6 in by2 ft 6 in. Inside a cube of approximately that sizesits this young offender. When he emerges into the reception area of the prison, he is distressed enough as it is, having been sentenced and removed from anything that he understands to a place that he may never have been to before.
One may say, “It serves him jolly well right—if he had not committed the crime, he would not have been sentenced and he would not have been transported in those extraordinary conditions to a place far away from his home”. I accept that argument up to a point, but if we are going to treat people decently within the criminal justice system, I am not at all sure that putting them in a biscuit tin and shunting them around the country is the best way to do it.
Glen Parva is the young offenders institution in my constituency. I share the estate, as it were, with myhon. Friend the Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan);it is partly in my constituency and partly in his constituency. It is two or three miles south of the city of Leicester. Young offenders who are sentenced in the north of England sometimes have to travel for hours in these sweatboxes before they are received into Glen  Parva late at night. I dare say that other young offenders institutions also receive young offenders late at night after they have travelled in those ridiculous conditions.
It is bad enough that these young offenders institutions are taking in people who are miles and miles away from their home, their families and so forth. That is perhaps not germane to this debate, but if we are going to have youngsters transported such long distances, I urge the Government to ensure that their welfare needs are addressed during transportation. As I understand it—I may be wrong, and the Minister will correct me—there are no toilet facilities for those youngsters during their journeys. Whether the van stops at pre-arranged times in order to allow the youngsters to get off and go to the lavatory, I do not know.
It strikes me as strange that, in the 21st century,we transport people, particularly youngsters, long distances in such conditions. If we transported animals in those conditions, I suspect that people would want to know about it and do something about it. It is not the Minister’s fault personally, but he is politically accountable for this aspect of public policy. I urge him to ensure humane arrangements for the transportation of youngsters, and indeed for the transportation of adults. I say that not because I have sympathy for the criminal as a criminal, but because we should not treat human beings inhumanely.

Gerry Sutcliffe: I am grateful to the hon. and learned Gentleman for the way in which he moved the amendment. He raised issues that clearly need to be resolved. I want the decency agenda to be further developed from its good beginnings in recent years.
 The clause clarifies the statutory position in relation to the journey between relevant premises, such as courts, police stations, hospitals and custodial establishments, that is made by young people who have been sentenced or remanded in custody. The amendment would place a statutory duty on the Secretary of State. Although I understand the motivation for it, I believe that it is unnecessary, both legally and practically.
Under the Children Act 2004, there is a legal obligation on the governors of secure training centres to safeguard and promote the welfare of children in their custody. In addition, paragraph 3 of schedule 1 to the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 places an express duty on custody officers carrying out escort functions to attend to the well-being of persons in their care, which includes their transportation between premises, for example between court and youth detention accommodation. The amendment would not go as far as the provisions to which I have just referred. 
The amendment is also unnecessary from a practical point of view. The Youth Justice Board has been seeking to improve escort arrangements for children and young people and has invested about £5 million every year to make separate arrangements for young people travelling to and from young offender institutions. The board also has a separate contracting arrangement for children and young people who are sentenced or remanded to secure training centres or secure children’s homes, which accommodate the youngest, most vulnerable group.
 While I was listening to the hon. and learned Gentleman, I took the opportunity to go through the contracts for escort arrangements. I will check with the officials to see whether they can be made available to the Committee. That will depend on commercial confidentiality. The contracts set out what should happen in relation to comfort stops, which I accept might not have happened on occasion. I would like to examine the issues that the hon. and learned Gentleman has raised.

Edward Garnier: I do not want to know anything that will interfere with proper security and I do not want the Minister to make announcements in public that would compromise prisoner transport security. Generally, escapes take place not from within the prison but during transit, either between prison and hospital, as we saw the other day, or between court and prison. The Minister need not worry. I do not need to know the terms of the contract, though it is kind of him to offer me that opportunity. I want to be assured that he, as the political master of this aspect of public policy, realises that there is a problem that he needs to look into and do something about.

Gerry Sutcliffe: I am grateful to the hon. and learned Gentleman. I want to give the Committee as much information as I can, because I agree that the issue needs to be examined. I hope that he is reassured by what I have said about the investment that the Youth Justice Board is making. I will pursue the individual cases to which he referred, because such practices are clearly not acceptable. The contracts contain provisions for comfort breaks and protection for individuals, but if they are not being observed, that must be addressed.
I believe that clause 27 is entirely sensible. The hon. and learned Gentleman’s amendments would not meet his requirements and fall short of existing provisions. With the assurance that I will look into the matter, I hope that he will withdraw his amendment.

Edward Garnier: I shall ask leave to withdraw the amendment, but I stress that this was not simply a debating exercise. There is an important point about humanity here that I think all Committee members want addressed. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 27 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 28

Orders and regulations

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

James Brokenshire: I rise briefly to seek clarification on clause 28. We have obviously discussed the breadth of the powers vested in the Secretary of State and the additional ability for further orders and regulations to be made that might widen and extend the scope of those powers. I have two technical questions for the Minister. First, how was it decided which order-making powers would be dealt with under the affirmative resolution procedure, rather than the negative resolution procedure? Secondly, will he clarify the order-making powers under clauses 4(1) and 33?

Gerry Sutcliffe: As the hon. Gentleman said, the clause sets out the level of parliamentary scrutiny for orders and regulations made under the Bill. It does not apply to orders establishing probation trusts or to commencement orders, which are not subject to parliamentary procedure.
Of those orders to which clause 28 applies, the following three are subject to the affirmative procedure: first, orders made under clause 10(2)(g), which allows the Secretary of State to add to the list of persons with whom data may be shared; secondly, orders made under clause 10(7), which provides the Secretary of State with the power to amend an enactment that prevents the sharing of data permitted under the clause, and thirdly, orders made under clause 30(2)(a), which relate to consequential or transitional provisions amending or repealing primary legislation. All other regulations will be subject to the negative resolution procedure. Our memorandum for the House of Lords Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee sets out in more detail our thinking on such matters.
Last Tuesday, during consideration of clause 4, concerns were expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford about the lack of parliamentary procedure for orders establishing trusts. I explained that in due course a trust might need to be established or dissolved for commercial reasons—for example, to bid for a contract or because a contract had been lost to another provider. It would be inappropriate to subject such commercial processes to parliamentary procedure. I undertook to consider further the points that he raised and I shall do so. Perhaps that is why the order-making powers in clause 10(2) to amend the definition of listed persons are subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.
Clause 10(2) defines the list of persons with whom the Secretary of State, and others defined in clause 10(1), acting through the National Offender Management Service, can share information on a reciprocal basis. That power enables the Secretary of State to prescribe additional bodies by order. The order-making power is subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. We think that that is the appropriate level of scrutiny, given the ambit of the power. Although I did not make reference to the particular clause, I hope that the hon. Gentleman understands our reasons for using those procedures. I hope that I have been of help to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 28 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 29 to 31 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 3

Minor and consequential amendments

Gerry Sutcliffe: I beg to move amendment No. 41, in schedule 3, page 31, line 6, after ‘paragraph (i)’ insert
‘(as it has effect before the commencement of paragraph 154(a) of Schedule 16 to the Armed Forces Act 2006)’.

Peter Atkinson: With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 42 to 45.

Gerry Sutcliffe: Clause 25 provides that the type of accommodation—I think that I need assistance. I shall speak rather slowly until assistance arrives.
 Mr. Garnier rose—

Gerry Sutcliffe: I am grateful to the hon. and learned Gentleman.

Edward Garnier: I have read Government amendments Nos. 41 to 45, and I can say that they are not controversial.

Gerry Sutcliffe: Clearly, I should have moved the amendment formally.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made: No. 42, in schedule 3, page 31, line 13, at end insert—
‘(2A) In paragraph (i) (as it has effect on or after the commencement of paragraph 154(a) of Schedule 16 to the Armed Forces Act 2006), in sub-paragraph (i) for “secure accommodation” there is substituted “youth detention accommodation”.’.
No. 43, in schedule 3, page 31, line 14, after ‘paragraph (j)’ insert
‘(as it has effect before the commencement of paragraph 154(b) of Schedule 16 to the Armed Forces Act 2006)’.
No. 44, in schedule 3, page 31, line 19, at end insert—
‘(3A) In paragraph (j) (as it has effect on or after the commencement of paragraph 154(b) of Schedule 16 to the Armed Forces Act 2006), in sub-paragraph (i) for “secure accommodation” there is substituted “youth detention accommodation”.’.
No. 45, in schedule 3, page 31, line 22, at end insert—

None

6A (1) The Armed Forces Act 2006 is amended as follows.
(2) In section 213(1) (references in certain provisions of the Sentencing Act to a detention and training order to include an order under section 211) for “to 105” there is substituted “to 105A”.
(3) In section 214(3) (powers of court to order person to be detained where offence committed during currency of detention and training order) for “secure accommodation” there is substituted “youth detention accommodation”.
(4) In section 215(3) (meaning of “secure accommodation” in section 214) for ““secure accommodation”” there is substituted ““youth detention accommodation””.’.—[Mr. Sutcliffe.]

Schedule 3, as amended, agreed to.

Schedules 4 and 5 agreed to.

Clauses 32 to 34 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

New Clause 3

Standards
‘(1) The Secretary of State shall by regulation, make provision for standards to be achieved by every provider of probation services.
(2) The standards to be achieved as prescribed by such regulations shall include standards concerning the provision of reports to courts and to the Parole Board.
(3) The regulations provided in subsection (1) above shall require financial penalties to be paid by any provider of probation services who, in the opinion of the Secretary of State, fails to meet the standards prescribed by the regulations.’.—[Mr. Garnier.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Edward Garnier: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Proposed subsections (1) to (3) fall to be discussed together; I shall come in a moment to subsection (2). It seems to me to be logical that, just as the Secretary of State currently makes sure by regulation and various other arrangements that the probation service hits certain targets, meets certain standards and employs people of sufficient calibre and qualifications, he should also ensure that the new providers of probation services comply with those standards. There should not be one set of regulations or standards that applies to the probation service and its employees, and different sets of standards that apply to third sector or private providers.
It seems to me that such an approach would be fair and provide clarity, as well as the necessary public confidence that, if we are to have non-state providers of probation services, they comply with proper standards. This is a matter of some practical importance because the number of providers of probation services could well be enormous. A number of small charities already help out with the resettlement of offenders, and a number of small groups that go into prisons and help with learning and reading skills. There are also a number of individuals who make themselves available to assist in what I would loosely call probation work, albeit that they are not official probation service employees or officers.
Equally, if we are going to look at the supervisionof community punishment offenders by private companies, individuals or charitable groups, the public must be assured that those involved are acquainted with the law and will ensure that the individuals in their care and in their charge will behave properly, turn up on time, do the work that they are required to do to a sufficient standard and not disappear before the time set by the court for the scheme that they are on.
My concern in that respect was increased in earlier sittings when the Minister was not sure whether the standards that might be found in the contracts made between the regional offender manager, the probation trust or the Secretary of State and the third party or private provider would be the same as the standards set by the Bill when it was enacted. I gently chided him for suggesting that there might be any confusion between the statutory and contractual terms, which should be identical.
That point is allied to the issue raised in proposed subsection (3). What will happen if private providers—especially the large plcs, which have the money and want to make a profit—fall below the standards that the public expect of them? Surely penalty clauses should be built in. If a private provider falls down in its work, the Secretary of State, through the probation trust, will have to find someone else to do it, and there is no reason why the taxpayer should suffer a loss as a consequence of the incompetence or inadequacy ofa probation provider. That matter requires careful thought, and I appreciate that the new clause does not set out the model regulation or standards that need to be followed. None the less, the principle behind proposed subsections (1) and (3) is clear and self-explanatory.
Proposed subsection (2) relates to court reporting—not journalism, but the provision of reports for the court so that it can apply the proper sentence to the case and the defendant. At present, in a magistrates court or a Crown court, when a defendant has been found guilty, the court will often order a pre-sentence report, which usually takes about three weeks to prepare. In central London, three weeks is about the minimum time that it takes for a probation officer to prepare a pre-sentence report. If the case is more complicated and requires the consideration of the defendant’s mental state, it can take longer to produce the report because the advice of medical and mental health practitioners has to be sought.
By and large, the probation service provides the magistrate or Crown court judge with a set of recommendations based on the assessment of the officer who has made the report of the facts of the case, and the matters relating to the defendant and his history, in its widest sense. There is no question of the probation officer who makes the report having any personal interest in the sentence. The pre-sentence report may state that there is no option other than custody for a particular offender and his offence, given his history and the damage he has caused the victim.
The probation officer may report that several community punishments are available and would be suitable, and he might recommend various activities that should be attached to the sentence. It is my experience that if more than two or three activities are added to the community punishment the sentenceloses its value. The defendant’s mind needs to be concentrated on doing one, two or three things well rather than on doing half a dozen things inadequately. Many community sentence defendants are not the brightest and they are not very good at timekeeping. If they are loaded up with all sorts of requirements, they will simply fall down and the sentence will have no effect. The expertise of a probation officer is needed to provide guidance on that, and he or she will also say what options suitable to a defendant are available in the area of a court or where he lives. The probation officer has no personal or commercial interest in the outcome.
We may be about to move into a set-up wherein private probation services supply court reports. If we are not careful the consequence, witting or unwitting, may well be that a private provider suggests to a sentencing court that a service that his company provides would be the best sentence or disposal of the case. Contractual terms or regulations should be crafted to make it impossible for a private provider to skew his advice so as to benefit his company commercially. That strikes me as sensible and uncontroversial. The Government should welcome it, and I am sure that they will.

Gerry Sutcliffe: I am grateful to the hon. and learned Gentleman for proposing the new clause, which provides an opportunity to debate the crucial matter of standards under the arrangements set out in the Bill.
Proposed subsections (1) and (2) would require the Secretary of State to set out in regulations the standards to be achieved by providers of probation services, particularly but not only in relation to the provision of reports to courts and the Parole Board. The new clause would also require regulations to provide for the imposition of financial penalties on providers who fail to meet the standards.
Of course I understand the concerns behind the new clause. We agree fully on the need for standards to apply to providers and for penalties to apply if standards are not met, but we do not believe that the legislative approach is not the right way to go about it. The overall priorities for the delivery of probation services will be set out each year in a published national commissioning framework. The national prioritiesin the framework will underpin the regional commissioning plans, which will also be public documents. The priorities will be informed by the consultation process that we discussed under clause 2.
In delivering the priorities, providers will be required to meet national standards, which are already in place and set out what we expect all providers to achieve. They do not have legislative status, and that is right. They are operationally focused and we need flexibility to amend them as necessary. A requirement to meet the standards will be set out in contracts and failure to meet them will incur penalties. The action to be taken in the event of such a failure will vary according to its seriousness and the reasons for it. Incentives and sanctions are being designed and agreed and they will, in time, include financial penalties. However, they are a matter for negotiations with providers.
The hon. and learned Gentleman’s concern about court reports has been expressed previously. We believe that there will be no conflict of interest for private companies writing pre-sentence reports, which will be done under the strict guidelines that are already in place. If concerns are raised or an anomaly is noted, they will be dealt with by the regional offender manager. The awarding of a sentence will remain entirely at the discretion of the sentencer.
The hon. and learned Gentleman went on to discuss how private providers of probation services mightbe held accountable for their performance. The requirement on private providers of correctional services, as commissioned by NOMS, to report their performance will be the same as the requirements on the public sector. Private sector providers will report to regional and national commissioners in the same way as public sector providers do and as existing private sector prisons already do. We believe that the safeguards are in place and that they should be contract related and in the guidelines. We certainly believe that serious failures ought to incur penalties, including financial ones. That is the right way to tackle the issues.
Legislation, even secondary legislation, is too inflexible; we cannot respond easily to changing needs, for example, as identified in the annual consultationor in negotiations between providers and the commissioner. Legislation is also centralising—a criticism that has been levelled at the Bill—and would stifle local flexibility and, potentially, innovation. On that basis, I hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman will agree to withdraw his new clause.

Edward Garnier: I am not entirely satisfied with whatthe Minister said, because I am concerned about the conflict of interest. I am not sure that he met that point. As he so frequently and delightfully says, I will reflect on—indeed, take away and reflect on—what the Minister has said. He will see the results of my reflections in due course. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 4

Reoffending targets
‘The Secretary of State shall by direction at the start of every year and in respect of every provider of probation services, set targets concerning the reduction of offending or reoffending by those charged with or convicted of offences, or those given conditional cautions in the area in which the provider carries out its functions under this Act.’.—[Mr. Garnier.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Edward Garnier: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Peter Atkinson: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment (a) to the proposed new clause, at end add—
‘(2) The Secretary of State shall report annually to Parliament on the nature of these targets and the progress made towards their attainment.’.

Edward Garnier: The new clause is designed to encourage the Government to be more open about what they want the Bill to achieve in relation to the providers of probation services.
First, we accept that the new clause might create an administrative burden for the Government. If we move beyond one provider of probation services, namely the probation service, to a regime in which probation services are provided by a host of private companies—charities, Church groups and so forth—the Secretary of State will be writing out a lot of targets for a lot of people. None the less, the underlying principle is sound.
One of the things to concern me and, I suspect, the wider public is the appalling rate of reoffending among those who have been released from custody. The reoffending rate for adult prisoners within two years of release is 67 per cent. or thereabouts and, for young offenders, is nearer 80 per cent. That is a huge waste of public money. Housing each adult prisoner per year costs £37,500 or thereabouts, and about £70,000 to house each young offender. If we put those people in custody and they come out in exactly the same condition in terms of education, drug addiction or social aptitude, and then they reoffend, we have wasted the public’s money. I want to the Government to deal with that. Prisons and young offender institutions are getting fuller and fuller, but the reoffending rate is not decreasing. It is high time that the Government set a target for themselves—let alone for anyone else—on reducing the numbers of people who are offending and reoffending and of people who are cautioned.
One of the points that the Council of Circuit Judges made to the Secretary of State—about three or four weeks ago, I think—was that so many youngsters nowadays are introduced to the criminal justice system time after time, but without going to court and, as a consequence, the fear factor of the punishment system within the criminal justice system does not apply. The  deterrent value of the court system simply existing,let alone sending youngsters to do community punishments or into detention, has gone by the time many get to the point of being sent into custody.
I think one of the less bright Ministers—I cannot remember which one, which is perhaps just as well—said that that was because judges are unduly lenient and that if judges did their job properly and did what Parliament required of them, they would bang those youngsters up much earlier. Actually, judges do their very best to comply with the law as Parliament directs them and that is why the prisons are overcrowded. The present Government have required more people to be sent to prison for longer. Surprise, surprise—more people are sent to prison for longer. Surprise, surprise—prisoner numbers have gone up. The only surprising thing—although I have given up being surprised by it— is that the Government failed to anticipate the consequence of their policy and failedto provide sufficient places to put those additional prisoners in.

Gerry Sutcliffe: I hear what the hon. and learned Gentleman says but surely he accepts that, in line with the Criminal Justice Act 2003, which provided for indeterminate sentences for dangerous prisoners who pose a threat to the public, it is right that such people are held in prison until they can prove that they do not pose such a threat. Does he think, particularly with his experience, that at the lower end of sentencing, people who would once have been fined are now being given a community sentence, and that that ratcheting up has contributed to the problem?

Edward Garnier: I am glad my hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch is here because that is a point that he drew our during our evidence session. The evidence from that session is now available to the Committee and is on the table. The point that he made is that the continuous low-level interface between youngsters and the criminal justice system has not had the desired effect of deterring them from crime, so by the time they get to a point where they have done something that may require them to go inside, they have lost any fear of the criminal justice system. If my hon. Friend wishes to intervene on me to explain that point rather more eloquently, I would be happy to give way to him.

James Brokenshire: The point I made has been taken up by the Council of Circuit Judges. Minor offending is the breeding ground—the council’s words—for more serious offending. As my hon. and learned Friend will agree, we need to be very careful not to create a system that inures offenders to the criminal justice system, such that when they arrive in prison or in custody or they are given more serious sentences, it is much harder to reform and rehabilitate them and therefore to stop them reoffending, especially if that reoffending is of a more serious nature.

Edward Garnier: There is the answer to the Minister’s question and I hope he will take that on board. I know that he will have studied the evidence session that we had a couple of weeks ago.
That suggests to me that we need an intelligent approach to reoffending, but it is not something to which the Government have applied their mind. They are very good at passing Acts of Parliament and very good at demanding longer and harsher sentences for this, that and the other but what they are not so good at is reducing reoffending. That is why it is important, given the opportunity of the Bill, that providers of probation services should be set the task of explaining what it is that they can do and the Secretary of State should tell them what he expects them to do. If they are not prepared to meet our expectations they should not be given the task.
I do not think that is at all controversial, but I notice that the hon. Member for Ceredigion wishes to amend my otherwise entirely perfect new clause by suggesting the Secretary of State should report annually to Parliament on the nature of these targets and the progress made towards their attainment. Again, the more we know about what the Secretary of State is doing the better. I say that particularly about the present one.

Mark Williams: In the absence of my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle, I was tempted to withdraw the amendment. However, on the basis of the kind remarks by the hon. and learned Member for Harborough, I shall reaffirm briefly what we said earlier: inspiring public confidence in the system will be a huge job. It manifestly does not enjoy a great deal of public confidence now. On that basis, we see no logical reason why an annual report should not be presented to Parliament.

Gerry Sutcliffe: The new clause highlights a key aim of the proposals on which we all agree—to reduce reoffending. The Committee will know that the Home Office has set targets to reduce the rate of reoffending by 5 per cent. by 2008 and 10 per cent. by 2010, compared with the 2003 figures. We have always said that the targets are ambitious and that the measures in the Bill are needed alongside many others to meet them, and we have talked about ways of doing that that involve the wider community. I do not think, however, that the approach proposed in the new clause is the way in which to measure success against the targets.
As the hon. and learned Member for Harborough admitted, there are difficulties with holding individual providers to account in respect of reoffending because more than one provider of a custodial or probation service is involved in the management of an individual offender. That is not a product of the arrangements in the Bill—it occurs now and is one of the reasons that Lord Carter said in his report that the commissioners, rather than individual providers should be held to account for performance on reoffending.
In fact, responsibility extends beyond criminal justice agencies. Reducing reoffending is a shared task and extends to agencies with responsibilities for housing, training, benefits and so on, as we have discussed. That is because the likelihood of reoffending has as much to do with whether an offender has a home, job, training, benefits and so on as it does with probation staff offender management and intervention. It is difficult to see how we could allow for that in a contract with an individual probation provider. Contractual targets should be consistent and aligned with the Government’s plans for reducing reoffending,  and not just targets to reduce reoffending per se. We intend to agree targets with all probation service providers for services that contribute to a reduction in reoffending.
Amendment (a) to the new clause states that the Secretary of State should report annually to Parliament on progress towards those targets. I do not think that that is necessary. We will continue to report overall progress, as we have been doing for some years. It is not necessary to put that requirement in statute. I understand the concerns of hon. Members, and hope that on the basis of my explanation the hon. and learned Gentleman will withdraw the motion.

Edward Garnier: This issue will not go away, but it will not be resolved this morning. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 6

Release on licence: polygraph condition
‘(1) This section applies where a person serving a relevant custodial sentence in respect of a relevant sexual offence is released on licence by the Secretary of State under any enactment.
(2) This section does not apply if at the time of his release on licence he is aged under 18.
(3) The Secretary of State may include a polygraph condition in the person’s licence.
(4) “Relevant custodial sentence” means—
(a) a sentence of imprisonment for a term of twelve months or more (including such a sentence imposed under section 227 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 (c.44)).
(b) a sentence of detention in a young offender institution for a term of twelve months or more,
(c) a sentence of detention under section 90 of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000 (c.6),
(d) a sentence of detention under section 91 of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000 for a period of twelve months or more,
(e) a sentence of custody for life under section 93 or 94 of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000, or
(f) a sentence of detention under section 226 or 228 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003.
(5) “Relevant sexual offence” means—
(a) an offence specified in Part 2 of Schedule 15 to the Criminal Justice Act 2003 (specified sexual offences),
(b) an offence specified in paragraphs 1 to 21 of Schedule 16 to that Act (offences under the law of Scotland), or
(c) an offence specified in Part 2 of Schedule 17 to that Act (offences under the law of Northern Ireland).’.—[Mr. Gerrard.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Neil Gerrard: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Peter Atkinson: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: New clause 7—Polygraph condition—
‘(1) For the purposes of section [Release on license: polygraph condition] a polygraph condition is a condition which requires the released person to participate in polygraph sessions conducted with a view to—
(a) monitoring his compliance with the other conditions of his licence;
(b) improving the way in which he is managed during his release on licence.
(2) A polygraph session is a session during which a person (a “polygraph operator”)—
(a) administers one or more polygraph examinations to the released person, and
(b) interviews the released person in preparation for, or otherwise in connection with, the administration of the examination or examinations.
(3) For the purposes of subsection (2), a polygraph examination is a procedure in which—
(a) the polygraph operator administering the examination questions the released person,
(b) the questions and the released person’s answers are recorded, and
(c) the released person’s physiological reactions while being questioned are measured and recorded by means of equipment of a type approved by the Secretary of State.
(4) A requirement to participate in polygraph sessions operates to require the released person—
(a) to participate in polygraph sessions at such times as may be specified in instructions given by an officer of a local probation board, and
(b) while participating in a polygraph session, to comply with instructions given to him by the polygraph operator.
(5) The Secretary of State may from time to time issue guidance as regards the giving of instructions under subsection (4)(a).
(6) The Secretary of State may make rules as to the conduct of polygraph sessions.
(7) The rules, may in particular, require polygraph operators to be persons who satisfy such requirements as to qualifications, experience and other matters as are specified in the rules.’.
New clause 8—Amendment on the Criminal Justice Act 2003—
‘In section 250(4) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 (c.44) (licence conditions for prisoners serving sentences of imprisonment of twelve months or more etc), in paragraph (b)(I) after “Criminal Justice and Court Services Act 2000” insert “or section [Release on licence: polygraph condition] of the Offender Management Act 2007 (c.).”.’.
New clause 9—Evidence from polygraph sessions—
‘(1) This section applies if a person participates in a polygraph session pursuant to the requirements of a polygraph condition.
(2) Evidence of the matters falling within subsection (3) may not be used—
(a) in any criminal proceedings in which the person is a defendant;
(b) in any proceedings on an appeal from such criminal proceedings.
(3) The matters are—
(a) any statement made by the person while participating in the polygraph session;
(b) the person’s physiological reactions while being questioned in the course of a polygraph examination administered to him during the polygraph session.
(4) In this section—
“defendant”, in relation to criminal proceedings, means a person charged with an offence in those proceedings;
“polygraph condition”, “polygraph examination” and “polygraph session” have the same meaning as in section [Release on licence: polygraphic conditions].’.

Neil Gerrard: The new clauses deal with the supervision of people convicted of sex offences, especially those involving children. The Home Office has been conducting a review of how it deals with children sex offenders and as part of that there has been a lot of discussion, over the past year or two, about whether there should be more disclosure. I know that the Minister went to the US to examine what is known as Megan’s law as one way of trying to protect children. In this country, however, most of the organisations involved in child protection, including the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children and Barnardo’s, are not in favour of going down that road and are much more in favour of examining other ways to ensure that child sex offenders are properly supervised and do not become a danger to children again. The new clauses are directly relevant to that process.
A pilot project has been run. The new clauses appeared, more or less as they are now, in a Bill that was published by the Government in the 2004-05 parliamentary Session. That Bill began in the House of Lords, but it never completed its passage because of the 2005 general election, which meant, of course, that all the Bills at that time fell. When I examine the current Bill, I do not understand why the new clauses, which were in the Bill that was introduced before the 2005 general election, have disappeared, particularly when a pilot project has been run, using polygraph tests and involving 347 sex offenders who were monitored between September 2003 and September 2005.
Those tests were used to assess the offenders’ compliance with their licence conditions, whether they were behaving suspiciously and whether they were adhering to treatment plans and programmes. It seems that the findings of that pilot project were quite positive. In quite a significant number of cases, the offenders made some disclosures during the polygraph tests that were relevant to their behaviour, supervision or treatment that allowed case managers to make adjustments to their supervision or, in cases where it appeared that there might be an immediate risk, to take some action. It also appears that the probation staff who were involved in managing the pilot and acting as case managers during it found that the information that was gained from the polygraph tests was helpful in assessing and managing risks. It therefore seems right to examine those measures and to determine whether they should be inserted into the Bill. Perhaps the Minister will explain why it was felt appropriate to include them in the Bill that was introduced before the 2005 general election—presumably on the basis that the pilot project had appeared to work reasonably well—and not include them in the present Bill.
Organisations such as Barnardo’s, which has run a number of projects to help children who have been sexually abused or assaulted and their families, support the new clauses and think that they are a much better way of getting better supervision of child sex offenders who are released on license than going down the road of wide disclosure. There is evidence from the US that that process of disclosure does not work particularly well. Not as many child sex offenders in the US stay in touch with supervision as do here. There is also a quite serious risk in disclosure—one that is not often pointed out. Although there are obviously some extremely unpleasant cases where children are sexually assaulted by strangers, often the greatest risk of sexual assault and abuse of a child comes from a relative or someone else who is already known to the child or their family. That risk must be borne in mind, because the disclosure of the identities of offenders could lead, in some cases at least, to the victim also being easily identified. The route suggested in the new clauses is worth considering as a better way of getting supervision, particularly of child sex offenders who are out on licence, than some of the suggestions that have been made.

James Brokenshire: The hon. Gentleman rightly touches on the important and sensitive issue of how best we can protect children from sex offenders. I, too, was struck by the briefing materials produced by a number of children’s charities stating their thinking on that point and on how to ensure that the offenders who might put children at risk are properly monitored, scrutinised and assessed on a continuing basis so that potential threats are examined. The hon. Gentleman’s new clauses reflect language that appeared previously in a Bill that did not find its way on to the statute book. It is well worth asking how the Government’s thinking has moved on since that then and what it currently is. I know that the Minister takes a particular interest in the matter.
The Home Office has received information on the pilot study on the use of polygraph information, and I note that Professor Don Grubin’s studyconcluded that 94 per cent. of probation staff involved found the information gained helpful. However, that is only a pilot study, and the information and results appear to be recent. Further debate, analysis and review will therefore be required to assess their import and the likely impact of a wider roll-out of any such scheme. I certainly welcome the debate that the new clauses offer, and I shall listen with great interest to how the Government intend to proceed how they believe children and other vulnerable members of our community can best be protected.

Gerry Sutcliffe: I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow for raising the issue, and I also thank the hon. Member for Hornchurch. There is genuine concern about how to respond to the challenge of sexual abuse in our communities. Meeting that challenge is not easy, but the Government give a high priority to the protection of the public and particularly the safeguarding of children. The Home Secretary, who used to be a spokesman on children for the Labour party many years ago, is close to the issue today—more of that later when we discuss the review.
We have taken action in a range of Departments, and we intend to continue and expand on that work so that it has a real impact on reducing sexual violence in all its forms. In particular, we have taken firm action on sex offenders. Our starting point is that serious child sex offenders should remain in custody for as long as they present a risk to the public. That was why we introduced the indeterminate public protection sentence, which will result in indefinite detention unless the risk has been reduced. We have taken further measures to strengthen both sentencing and offender management.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow said, on 19 June last year the Home Secretary commissioned a review of the management of childsex offenders. Its principal aim is to enhance child protection by focusing on two linked objectives: strengthening sex offender management and empowering people through increased public awareness.
The four elements of the review include the multi-agency public protection arrangements, which are unique to the UK in bringing together the responsible authorities in dealing with the management of sex offenders in the MAPPA categories. I am very grateful for the amount of work done by MAPPA officers across the country. The review is looking at the consistency of the MAPPA across the existing 42 areas and at getting the right level of buy-in to ensure that the MAPPA work successfully. Unfortunately, we have seen the arrangements not working recently and serious offences taking place.
The second element of the review is treatment, and making sure that we do everything that can bedone regarding treatment of sex offenders, where appropriate or possible. A great many issues, some of which are highly emotive, will be looked at. For instance, what goes on in Denmark in terms of chemical castration and associated issues will cause highly emotive discussions on treatment.
The third element is approved premises, and whatwe will do about our 104 approved premises. Are suitable arrangements in place for dealing with the management of sex offenders? We talked previously about the issue of resettlement. The fourth element is disclosure, which my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow said was more controversial, although I think all the issues are controversial, and what we should do about it. He is right that in the majority of child sex offender cases—more than 80 per cent.—the perpetrator is known to the victim, either as a member of the family or a closely associated responsible adult. However, 20 per cent. of cases involve predators who operate in a particular way, usually getting alongside a vulnerable single mother, after which the grooming takes place. The review will focus on what information the individual mother should be able to access.
Information is already available through current legislation. Responsible authorities that hold information can give it to relevant bodies, whether they are schools, local authorities or whoever. The review will focus on where individual responsibilities lie. I went to America to look at Megan’s law, and I am on the record as saying that it would be highly inappropriate for the UK, for lots of reasons. People on the sex offenders register automatically going on to a website is clearly not what is required. Unfortunately, an individual on the sex offenders register was murdered by someone who got access to the register. We are talking here about the most difficult offenders, however, and I was interested in what happened when the child exploitation and online protection centre, under the leadership of Jim Gamble, put on its website people who were not complying with the requirements. Five people were put on the website and three of them have been caught and arrested, because they appeared there.
Disclosure and what we do with information are difficult issues to deal with. I am going back to the States in a couple of weeks’ time to finalise our response. I think that my hon. Friend is right about the variety of stakeholders involved in the consultation who have been looking at all the issues. Polygraph testing, which I will come to in a second, is a key element, but it is not better than some other approaches, but should be considered alongside them. Disclosure should be appropriate and accessible two ways, and there should be penalties for improper use of the information.
Again, the process is not party political. I know that hon. Members from all parties will be interested with what we come up with. We will discuss further what we all want to see: the right solution to meet our requirements. The overriding issue has to be education and making sure that parents know how to safeguard their children from difficult situations.
My hon. Friend talked about the role that technology will have in helping to protect the public, including satellite tracking and the use of polygraphs with sex offenders. The report will be out shortly, but as he said, a major pilot study of polygraph testing was conducted by the probation service between September 2003 and September 2005, the results of which were published in December 2006. Almost 350 sex offenders agreed to take polygraph tests as part of their supervision and treatment process. They were asked about adherence to licence conditions and their response to risk factors that were particular to each individual. The importance of the polygraph examination was not in whether it detected deception, although it did in many cases, but in achieving the disclosure of new information by offenders before and after the examination.
Using their knowledge of a case from probation records, and after discussion with probation officers, the examiners concluded that new disclosures that were relevant to treatment and supervision were made in79 per cent. of first examinations and 78 per cent. of retests, regardless of whether the test was passed, failed or inconclusive. Nearly 30 per cent. of such disclosures took place in the post-test interview, when offenders were challenged with the results. Probation staff overwhelmingly found those results helpful in the risk management of offenders. We wish to listen to those views and give all possible support to those who have the difficult job of managing sex offenders in the community.
As the hon. Member for Hornchurch said, there are a number of problems with the research, which limits the usefulness of the findings. Offenders were self-selecting. On average, 43 per cent. of those eligible volunteered for testing; we need to be concerned about those who did not. My hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow is aware that to make polygraph testing mandatory, we require legislation. The Government introduced clauses to that effect in the 2005 Bill, with which this new clause appears to have a remarkable similarity. The Government are sympathetic to the new clause, but we require time to consider the category of sex offender for which the polygraph test would best be used. The new clause uses the previous criteria of those sex offenders who are on release from a prison sentence of 12 months or longer. That may well be the preferred option, but we need to consider whether it should be widened to test all high-risk sex offenders regardless of supervision status, for example.
We must also consider how to pilot mandatory testing. In the earlier Bill, the Government made a commitment to pilot in a number of regions before bringing back before the House the question of extension of polygraph examinations to other areas. The new clause makes no reference to such a commitment. We believe that if we are to take forward the use of polygraph tests, we should do so cautiously, learning from small-scale implementation. That will give us the opportunity to assess any problems of process and to be clearer about the expected benefits.
Mandatory testing will be a new requirement for the management of sex offenders and will require clear procedural guidance from the Secretary of State. We will also seek to set guidance on the qualifications needed to conduct polygraph examinations and the form that examinations take. In assessing the risk of serious child sex offenders, we do not envisage using the type of examination that takes place in popular light entertainment programmes.
We consider all the issues as matters of urgency. We are sympathetic to the new clause and we will carefully consider it before Report. With that assurance, I hope that my hon. Friend will be satisfied that we want to achieve a suitable solution. I am sure that the review that we will undertake will meet the requirements of all hon. Members. On that basis, I hope that he will withdraw the motion. We will return to the matter when we are able to do so.

Neil Gerrard: I thank my hon. Friend for his positive reply; it was more positive than the replies that I usually get in Committee. I understand the points that he made. The pilot scheme was self-selecting, so there are questions as to how it would work if it were mandatory. I also take his point about the definitions that would be needed. If we were to go down the road of mandatory testing, the sensible approach would be to do so gradually with the introduction of pilots. I accept that the new clauses do not allow for that, but I thank him for his positive reply. Hopefully we will be able to return to the matter on Report and get some changes to the Bill along the lines suggested. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Ordered,
That the memorandum already reported to the House be appended to the proceedings of the Committee.—[Mr. Sutcliffe.]

Question proposed, That the Chairman do report the Bill, as amended, to the House.

Gerry Sutcliffe: I want to thank you, Mr. Atkinson, and your co-Chairman, Mr. Bayley, for the efficient way in which you have handled our deliberations. I also thank the Clerks, the Hansard reporters, the police and the other people connected with the smooth running of our Committee. The Bill is important, and it has caused some controversy and will continue to be discussed in its remaining stages.
I wish to put on record my thanks to the spokespeople of the Opposition parties, the hon. and learned Member for Harborough and the hon. Members for Hornchurch, for Cheadle and for Ceredigion, for their constructive involvement. There are many issues that we must reflect on and return to. The Committee has been good-natured and has dealt with the issues in great detail.
I thank my hon. Friends for their involvement, particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow, who has expressed concerns that are shared by many Labour Members. I also thank Opposition Members for their active involvement, the usual channels for their sterling performance in ensuring that we meet our requirements and the Home Office officials who have supported the Committee. I have learned a lot about people’s concerns about the details of the Bill.
I thank the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling, whom I nearly forgot. He is known in the Home Office as Mr. Big, for many reasons, but particularly because of his performance last week in dealing with serious crime issues. I look forward to the progress of the Bill through its remaining stages and I thank you for your involvement, Mr. Atkinson.

Edward Garnier: I join the Minister in expressing our thanks for the work of all those who have made the Committee stage as smooth as it has been—you, Mr. Atkinson, your co-Chairman, Mr. Bayley, the Clerks and Hansard staff and the police who have kept an eye on our proceedings.
The Minister kindly said that we have been constructive. There may come a time when we shall become deconstructive, and I assure him that the Bill remains controversial. It got its Second Reading thanks to the official Opposition, so we hold him on probation and we shall be looking for constant reports. We expect his targets to be met and we expect him to return, having made his reflections, with an improved Bill on Report. As I said on Second Reading, the support that we gave then, which he seemed pretty reluctant to accept—he was almost content to let the Bill fall—was conditional. Those conditions have yet to be met, so the Bill is by no means safe, but then very little in the Home Office is.

Mark Hunter: I concur with the remarks of the hon. and learned Member for Harborough and the Minister. I thank you, Mr. Atkinson, and your co-Chairman, Mr. Bayley, for the way in which you have presided over proceedings, and all the supporting officials, including the policemen.
I thank the Minister for his approach to the Committee. He has indicated that he is prepared to take on board concerns and respond to them appropriately, and all our concerns have had a decent airing. There remain a number of significant areas of disagreement on which we look forward to resuming battle on Report. For the time being, I thank the Minister and his team for the way in which he has allowed the debate to progress.

David Maclean: I have not sought to intervene in the Committee until now; as a former Home Office Minister I thought that it would be best to leave the new teams on both sides of the room to conduct proceedings.
I seek clarification that the Minister will be adhering to an important convention that used to operate in the Home Office when I was a Minister there from 1993 to 1997. We introduced a record number of Criminal Justice Bills—a fat lot of good it did us—and Ministers always wished to thank our civil servants and the Members and advisers who had helped us. We used to have a drinks party at the end. It was an all-party drinks party, because we did not wish to be accused of favouring the Conservative party. I am sure that the Minister will wish to take advice from his advisers on the matter, and when the Bill receives Royal Assent I am sure he will wish to pay tribute to the Chairmen, the Hansard writers, his excellent civil servants and lawyers and both members of the Committee who have contributed and those who have sat in silence. That is an important convention that ought to be continued.

Gerry Sutcliffe: I am always interested in drinks parties for a lot of reasons, and I am happy to consider that convention as long as the cost of it is shared equally by the two Ministers responsible.

Peter Atkinson: I look forward to getting my invitation.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill, as amended, to be reported.

Committee rose at thirteen minutes to One o’clock.